Wednesday, January 20, 2016

The Cretaceous–Paleogene
boundary (K–Pg) represents a major event in earth history that impacted both terrestrial
and marine realms. To explore the nature of sea-level and biologic change,
Esmeray-Senletet al.explore strata straddling the Cretaceous–Paleogene
boundary event in the Haymana Basin, Turkey, using planktonic foraminiferal
biostratigraphy, a comprehensive microfacies analysis, and a sequence
stratigraphy. The results illustrate a catastrophic and abrupt extinction
of planktonic foraminifera in the Haymana Basin at the boundary. Immediately
above the boundary is an enrichment of authigenic clay minerals and an
extraordinary increase in abundance of echinoid fecal pellets, interpreted to
represent low sedimentation rates; this signal may provide a criteria for
identifying this horizon regionally. Comparing the interpreted relative
sea-level curve of the Haymana Basin with sections in Europe, North Africa, and
New Jersey, suggests similar trends in sea-level change, and indicate that the
K–Pg boundary occurred during a global sea-level rise.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Many
sequence stratigraphic studies have emphasized the important role of eustatic
change on sequence architecture, led to large extent by studies in the Book
Cliffs region of Utah and Colorado. This paper by Madof et al.
tests the hypothesis that deposition within the late Cretaceous western
interior foreland basin was modulated by the interaction of eustatic change and
regional patterns of flexural subsidence—and suggest that it fails. The paper
describes new insights concerning relationships among deposition (shallow
marine, marginal marine, nonmarine facies), thickness trends, and geometrical
relationships. The data suggest syndepositional tilting markedly influenced patterns, and cast
doubt on the flexure-eustatic conceptual model for the origin of sequences in
this area. Instead, the authors explain the patterns of deposition within the
Book Cliffs in terms of an actively deforming basin, and propose that
stratigraphic architecture can be fully understood only in three dimensions.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Social interactions are not
just for farm
animals. Many of you regularly use social media to post important
personal status updates and share photos instantly, and Tweet about your most recent
publication. These actions are likely among our readers because (as we all
know) JSR PaperClips readers are among the most tech savvy and hip scientists
on the planet.

Yet, as a teacher,
researcher, author, past JSR Editor, and current GeoscienceWorld board member,
I want to discuss an issue that is a potential threat to non-profit publishing.
Please read on and consider the marked impact of some online “social” interactions.

Certainly “Facebook
for Scientists” Must Be Good! Such
is the stated goal of websites such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu – and in
all likelihood, you are bombarded daily with emails from these groups. And to
some extent, we play along. Research
by Nature in 2014 suggested that more than 25% of scientists and
engineers “regularly” visited either ResearchGate or Academia.edu; investors
such as Bill Gates see possibilities, as they have invested more than $30M in
these for-profit enterprises. But, unlike
Facebook, are these ventures really useful? Both of these enterprises will
also need to begin making a profit at some time to repay the investors—how will
they do that? As of now they rely on authors supplying free content and doing
all of the work, and on societies and publishers to allow such free access.

Clearly the front-end goals
of discoverability and access to research
are motivation for many of us to list publications on these sites. However,
many researchers, including JSR readers and authors, go further and even upload
papers to these sites as well, often with well-intentioned aim of sharing their
research with the community at large.

Yet, there is a fundamental issue involved in
this action—in many cases, journal and book authors (including SEPM
contributors) have transferred the copyright for the content to the publisher
and the final formatted, published article is actually copyrighted by the
publisher, and so these uploads are actually illegal, a violation of copyright law. Recently, a major for-profit
publisher sent to Academia.edu several thousand letters that insisted that they
remove materials for which they owned the copyright (invoking the US Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA));
Academia.edu merely passed each on to the users. The response? According to a
Nature report:
“One researcher who received a take-down request did not want to be named,
but told Nature: ‘I hardly know any scientists who don’t violate copyright
laws. We just fly below the radar and hope that the publishers don’t notice.’”
Does that sound familiar?

Why do most publishers require a copyright transfer
from authors? There are multiple
reasons but the primary reason regards long-term oversight of the how the
content is used, as society publishers are longer lived than individual
authors. Misuse and commercial application of the content are ongoing
activities and made even easier in the digital world of today. A society, like
SEPM, can (and does) monitor and protect and preserve authors’ work for the
long term. Another main reason is the granting permission to properly and
legally use the content; and on this front, SEPM grants many such permissions
monthly, alleviating the burden on individual authors. SEPM also licenses the
content to several online aggregates (such as GeoscienceWorld), all of which promote
our author’s works to many readers at many institutions globally. Currently,
JSR has over 1700 individual member readers and over 1750 library/institutional
subscribers, with no doubt many, many readers.

So—What’s the growing impact on non-profit (and
really, on all) publishers? As STEM
research works its way through the new digital and open access publishing
world, traditional libraries—traditionally, the warehouses of printed works—have
morphed drastically, becoming more access points to online content. SEPM, as
with many society publishers, offer hybrid publishing options which allow
authors without “publication” funding to get their works published or those
with funding, whether required or not by the funder, to pay for a Gold Open
Access publication. SEPM still offers subscriptions to individuals, libraries
and institutions to make sure that they have access to all SEPM articles but if
SEPM publications are available online with free access to all of the
individually uploaded articles, the subscription revenue will disappear
and with it the publications themselves…and shortly thereafter, the field
trips, the conferences, and books, and everything else that uses these funds!
The journals are the heart of SEPM! So at
the very least, please consider—as an author—whether it is better to support the
for-profit online “social” enterprises (Bill Gates et al.) or the non-profit
scientific society publishers like SEPM (e.g., ultimately, YOU!). [Hint: The latter is better.]

In this context, we at JSR
PaperClips wanted to remind you of the SEPM publications policy, as posted on
the SEPM web page. It reads as follows: “IMPORTANT:
Authors may not post the final PDF or any proof version of the paper to any
institutional website, or article sharing free access websites, such as
Academia.edu or ResearchGate, etc. Authors are encouraged to share e-print PDFs
with those individuals that have requested copies, similar to printed reprint
distribution. SEPM is continuously reviewing the online digital publishing
landscape to better serve authors and users. SEPM is closely monitoring efforts
to resolve these issues such as discussed at http://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-consultations/scn-consultation-2015/.” (see original at https://www.sepm.org/Permissions)

So the bottom line is that
yes, these sites can be useful to promote and advertise and distribute research
results, but they can facilitate illegal activity. We would encourage authors
to be aware of their copyright responsibilities in posting published papers to
these types of sites.

By all means, interact with colleagues. Doing so is at the heart of the SEPM mission. Consider
that responding to specific individuals with e-prints (actual […errrr…online]
interaction!) likely develops more useful interaction than allowing anonymous
downloads. Please share your SEPM-published efforts with interested scientists
and the general public. But, do it the right way.

One right way, and an easy
work-around consistent with both dissemination and copyright, for ResearchGate
and Academia.edu is to acknowledge authorship, and list it on your RG or Academia.edu web site, with the option that either
interested persons “request full text” directly from you or include the DOI
link to the work. Most of these websites provide that option. In doing so,
you are in compliance with SEPM copyright conditions to which you agreed during
the publication process, you support SEPM, and you fully share your work
with others interested in your research. Or, alternatively, all SEPM authors
have the option to make their publications open access at the time of
publication; relatively few have taken advantage of this option. But, the
opportunity is there.

We all know we need to be careful
with what you find
on the internet. Please be aware unintended consequences of your content
that you place
on the internet as well.